In today’s America, politics have become an essential part of the culture, and at first, it seems to be a wonderful thing: people are engaged in following the course of their country. However, the fundamentals of political opinions have drastically changed over the past 60 years, and the emergence of concrete ideologies has ruined the institution of civil decision-making.  

It is not uncommon for one to figure out one’s opinion on a multitude of issues by solely examining their reasoning behind a couple of political views. More people, particularly of the younger generations, are becoming “possessed” by ideologies – and it makes perfect sense. Ideologies come to life as finished products that require little questioning, and almost every existing ideology easily neglects others’ premises. 

Such ideological possession is not unique to any side of the political spectrum. Ultra-progressive equity-advocates never challenge Marx’s premises from Das Kapital, and Adam Smith’s contentions are simply non-existent in their view. Even such extreme ideas like white supremacy are backed by “research,” and there are certainly arguments that might appear sound to someone who has never heard of an opposing view. A person subjected to such an ideology becomes so convinced that other races are inferior that, over time, they will not even consider thinking otherwise. For both progressive and far-right theories, the ideology’s narrative appears to satisfy the underlying premises flawlessly and thus is omitted from even an iota of criticism. There is no doubt that such certainty on any political issue is a product of ignorance and a deficiency of exposure to the other side’s arguments. An ideologically possessed person tends to stay in the circles that are in full accord with his beliefs, watch one-sided, biased sources, and certainly avoid all literature that gives ground for any controversy regarding the selected ideology. Such a lack of informational inflow from the other side benefits no one. Each group sits in their respective bubbles with little ability to escape 

The development of ideologies also creates a presumption that political opinions only exist in “bundles.” With how widespread ideological commitment is, people associate particular political views with the analogous extremes: if you do lean towards traditional values, it is implied that you are automatically anti-LGBT, racist, or some other label, and if you believe that there should be more opportunities for unprivileged citizens, you are instantly viewed as a radical leftist. Either of these classifications may be remarkably inaccurate, yet people who determine their judgments on an issue-by-issue basis are accredited with beliefs they do not hold. After such a political assignment is done, one merely applies the premise from earlier in the article – if these people possess a view similar to one from an existing “package,” then none of their suggestions should be examined. This setup becomes a real problem when it comes to voting for politicians and is magnified by the two-party system. There is no middle ground nowadays – you either have to be a part of the Democratic party that is currently shifting more and more towards the radical left or vote for Republicans whose party views have been slowly drifting towards the Tea Party’s nationalistic attitudes after Donald Trump’s victory in 2016. Such an arrangement is exceptionally convenient for either party’s politicians since they can convince voters to pick them by appealing to only a number of beliefs, such as gun control, healthcare, and immigration. People vote for a couple of values that they hold, meanwhile, the rest of the candidate’s agenda is quite hurtful to their livelihoods, for instance, conservative farmers rooting for Donald Trump even though his foreign policy decisions hurt their industry. 

 So, what should happen? Well, the most obvious answer is to educate yourself and try to persuade others to look outside of their ideological presumptions. You do no good by shielding yourself from criticism and the other side’s arguments – even if you think they are wrong, figure out why. You will most likely have a reason prepared for neglecting various opinions, but you should examine the defects in your reasoning. Ideologies are mere oversimplifications of the reality around us, and if even one truly worked and was as efficient as it claims to be, then everyone would simply follow it. Yet, there is no single ideology that appears to capture all the perplexities of life flawlessly. It is most likely that even the combinations of all the doctrines will fail to overwhelm the challenges presented. So, reflect more on your own beliefs, dispute the reasoning, and get out of your comfort zone. Nobody likes to be mistaken, but the only alternative is to be in utter ignorance.